placing their highest priority on economic growth and restraining the growth of government.

Click to expand...

I think Obama wins regardless of who runs for the GOP.
That being said I think Ron Paul would make the election interesting and he would force a more domestic fiscal policy debate. I think it will be that way anyways - but Paul would help make it more so IMO.

There is everything I like about Ron Paul except his personality (flat, uninspiring) and his speaking style (wet noodle). People will vote image and projected assertiveness and confidence. Not issues or substance.

I think Obama wins regardless of who runs for the GOP.
That being said I think Ron Paul would make the election interesting and he would force a more domestic fiscal policy debate. I think it will be that way anyways - but Paul would help make it more so IMO.

Click to expand...

The only way Obama could loose the election is if the Republicans can find a Right Wing Common Sense Patriotic Muslim (america is hung up on this type of sh!t) now is the time for somebody "different" to run, they will win, legs will tingle all across the land.

I kind of like Ron Paul, but I think his age will hurt him, aside from the fact that his libertarian sensibilities would offend the partisans and their corporate sponsors. His selection for the Vice President would be analyzed to death.

However, I do agree that his politics, when brought onto the national stage, would probably open the debate floor in a way we haven't seen since Perot. That could only be good for this country.

No surprise he won. I think it's the racist newsletter that had his Christmas greetings, his name, and was written by his aide -- you know the newsletter: the one Paul absurdly denies any knowledge of -- is probably what gave him the edge. Now, if they can only get his son Rand, who wants to be bring back legalized discrimination, on the ticket, the racists will have a dream team.

No surprise he won. I think it's the racist newsletter that had his Christmas greetings, his name, and was written by his aide -- you know the newsletter: the one Paul absurdly denies any knowledge of -- is probably what gave him the edge. Now, if they can only get his son Rand, who wants to be bring back legalized discrimination, on the ticket, the racists will have a dream team.

Click to expand...

One day, people will wonder what happened to American politics, and somehow this post will survive to be an example of what was wrong about American political discourse.

One day, people will wonder what happened to American politics, and somehow this post will survive to be an example of what was wrong about American political discourse.

Click to expand...

So why do you think that 90%+ of blacks and 70%+ of most other minorities vote flor the Democrats? Clearly, if you're a bigot, you're more likely to vote for the Republicans, and Ron Paul is a bigot. If he did not have that newsletter the bigots would have probably divided themselves among other Republicans. If I was a racist, I'd absolutely support Libertarian views. After all, Rand Paul believes that instead of the Civil War, the Unon should have purchased freedom for the slaves from their owners.

So why do you think that 90%+ of blacks and 70%+ of most other minorities vote flor the Democrats? Clearly, if you're a bigot, you're more likely to vote for the Republicans, and Ron Paul is a bigot. If he did not have that newsletter the bigots would have probably divided themselves among other Republicans. If I was a racist, I'd absolutely support Libertarian views. After all, Rand Paul believes that instead of the Civil War, the Unon should have purchased freedom for the slaves from their owners.

Click to expand...

Don't you see that you just reduced an entire platform to a racist agenda? I understand that you are a partisan Democrat, but I think this country needs exposure to thinking outside of the agenda set by the Democrats and Republicans. Ron Paul, whatever his views on race (I think you're oversimplifying things, but I don't care enough to debate it), brings something different to the table. I know that Libertarian views scare the bejeezus out of the mainstream parties, because libertarianism is about shifting power away from the government. I'm not 100% Libertarian, because I do have some significant difference of opinion on some matters, but I think Washington could do with some libertarianism in the mix.

As for why the Democrats get the black and minority vote, I think the issues are far more complicated and nuanced than "REPUBLICANS AND LIBERTARIANS ARE SCREAMING RACISTS!!!"

From what I see of you, I think you're too intelligent to really be buying into some of the things you're posting here.

Don't you see that you just reduced an entire platform to a racist agenda? I understand that you are a partisan Democrat, but I think this country needs exposure to thinking outside of the agenda set by the Democrats and Republicans. Ron Paul, whatever his views on race (I think you're oversimplifying things, but I don't care enough to debate it), brings something different to the table. I know that Libertarian views scare the bejeezus out of the mainstream parties, because libertarianism is about shifting power away from the government. I'm not 100% Libertarian, because I do have some significant difference of opinion on some matters, but I think Washington could do with some libertarianism in the mix.

As for why the Democrats get the black and minority vote, I think the issues are far more complicated and nuanced than "REPUBLICANS AND LIBERTARIANS ARE SCREAMING RACISTS!!!"

From what I see of you, I think you're too intelligent to really be buying into some of the things you're posting here.

Click to expand...

Libertarian views provide de facto support to the dominant culture. If we were a truly colorblind and otherwise tolerant society, they would make more sense, but we are not that kind of society. Libertarianism appeals to racists, but not all Libertarians are racist. Indeed, many Libertarians have a sort naive view that the pure simplicity of Libertarianism is somehow more important than the reality that those views have historically resulted in the oppression of minorities, women, workers, children, and others. On paper, the case for Libertarianism is stronger than in reality, IMO.

Libertarian views provide de facto support to the dominant culture. If we were a truly colorblind and otherwise tolerant society, they would make more sense, but we are not that kind of society. Libertarianism appeals to racists, but not all Libertarians are racist. Indeed, many Libertarians have a sort naive view that the pure simplicity of Libertarianism is somehow more important than the reality that those views have historically resulted in the oppression of minorities, women, workers, children, and others. On paper, the case for Libertarianism is stronger than in reality, IMO.

Click to expand...

Right, so the way to reform the human condition to be free of any prejudice is to have state-mandated discrimination in an effort to solve the problem of personal discrimination.

Or are you saying that only people in the majority group have prejudices?

Right, so the way to reform the human condition to be free of any prejudice is to have state-mandated discrimination in an effort to solve the problem of personal discrimination.

Or are you saying that only people in the majority group have prejudices?

Click to expand...

It's the federal government that defeated the states to end slavery, impose the woman's vote, provide some measure of equality for gays, end segregation, block discrimination based on race and gender, and so on. The state, through its laws and educational system, shapes our mores, and as time passes bigotry has become less socially acceptable. In case you haven't realized, our American values were handed down by the state through it's legal system and educational system, which of course are ultimately influenced by an older set of western values.

I'm not sure what kind of state-mandated discrimination you're referring to. Can you clarify that?

As far as minorities having prejudices, the fact is that system protects both minorities and majorities. In fact, there's ample evidence that white straight male Christians have done well under our system, so overall our system does a good job protecting them.

It's the federal government that defeated the states to end slavery, impose the woman's vote, provide some measure of equality for gays, end segregation, block discrimination based on race and gender, and so on. The state, through its laws and educational system, shapes our mores, and as time passes bigotry has become less socially acceptable. In case you haven't realized, our American values were handed down by the state through it's legal system and educational system, which of course are ultimately influenced by an older set of western values.

I'm not sure what kind of state-mandated discrimination you're referring to. Can you clarify that?

Click to expand...

You do realize that the abolitonist and suffrage movements came out of American churches? That Lincoln was a Republican? The man being portrayed by Ioan Gruffudd in my avatar is William Wilberforce. He, along with a group of people known as the Claphamites, drove the state to abolish the slave trade and eventually slavery in the British Empire. The state has no mind or soul in and of itself. Laws are made by men (and women).

My values do not come from the state. The values of a country come from its people, in my opinion. Those values made all of the things you cite possible.

My point was that bigotry is a failing, but it is part of the human condition. When bigotry is armed with power (i.e. the bigot is in the majority group) you get discrimination. If the remedy for this is to mandate discrimination against members of the majority group, it will not feel less unfair to the victim of that discrimination (particularly if that vicitim is not a bigot).

You do realize that the abolitionist and suffrage movements came out of American churches? That Lincoln was a Republican? The man being portrayed by Ioan Gruffudd in my avatar is William Wilberforce. He, along with a group of people known as the Claphamites, drove the state to abolish the slave trade and eventually slavery in the British Empire. The state has no mind or soul in and of itself. Laws are made by men (and women).

Click to expand...

Obviously there's a synergistic relationship between individuals and their government in a democracy, but in the case of civil rights it has taken the federal government to overcome resistance at the state level. That does not mean that some states are ahead of the feds. You do realize that at Lincoln's time the Republican Party was a liberal party with it's base in the Northeast and that Lincoln had to deal with a left wing (the Radical Republicans), not a right wing in his party?

The Brandon Five said:

My values do not come from the state. The values of a country come from its people, in my opinion. Those values made all of the things you cite possible.

Click to expand...

So are you saying if you were born in rural China, you would have the values you currently have? I think there's a synergistic relationship between the state and its people in a democracy. A good example would be the treatment of women. 50 years ago, it was okay to sexually harass women and discriminate against women. Now, as a result of the woman's movement, which led to legal and educational changes, that's no longer acceptable.

The Brandon Five said:

My point was that bigotry is a failing, but it is part of the human condition. When bigotry is armed with power (i.e. the bigot is in the majority group) you get discrimination. If the remedy for this is to mandate discrimination against members of the majority group, it will not feel less unfair to the victim of that discrimination (particularly if that vicitim is not a bigot).

Click to expand...

What examples mandated discrimination against the majority are you referring to? Sure, there were a handful of cases when Affirmative Action was around, but that's no longer the case. Affirmative action succeeded in opening up whites-only fire, police, and construction trades to minorities, among others, and thus support for it waned.

The Brandon Five said:

My other point was that all of us have prejudices.

For example: some people dislike Republicans and Libertarians.

Click to expand...

Of course, we all have prejudices, but usually when talking about discrimination we're talking about things that people can't easily change and not respecting the views and values of others. I disagree with Republican and Libertarians, but I certainly don't dislike them. I don't think I have any prejudices. For instance, I don't think the wealthy should pay more in tax because I'm against wealth, I think they should pay more tax because we have too much debt and need to do more to help poor people. If there was a way to avoid taxes and help the needy, I'd be all for it.

So are you saying if you were born in rural China, you would have the values you currently have? I think there's a synergistic relationship between the state and its people in a democracy. A good example would be the treatment of women. 50 years ago, it was okay to sexually harass women and discriminate against women. Now, as a result of the woman's movement, which led to legal and educational changes, that's no longer acceptable.

Click to expand...

The women's movement, which was borne out of the masses, pushed the government to do it's job and protect them as equal citizens. It was not borne out of the government, though our form of government allowed this to happen. However, I'm not so sure that such popular movements (if they can still be conducted) can be successful in today's political environment.

The women's movement, which was borne out of the masses, pushed the government to do it's job and protect them as equal citizens. It was not borne out of the government, though our form of government allowed this to happen. However, I'm not so sure that such popular movements (if they can still be conducted) can be successful in today's political environment.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, grassroots movements come first (thank God). But, those movements do not rise with equal power everywhere. They are able to affect the national consensus and have more immediate results on the federal government than the individual state governments. State governments are vastly more insulated from public pressure (and are vastly more corrupt) than the federal government. The gay rights movement is an example of a movement that has been effective in today's political environment. Hate crimes legislation and the end to don't ask/don't tell are two recent examples.

That's an interesting statement, Nikolai, and one I agree with, but I wonder if our reasons are the same or even similar. Can you elaborate on why?

Click to expand...

There are myriad reasons for it. I'll have to give the "half-assed" version because I have to run. The first is that it is difficult to get Americans together to do anything outside of watching the Super Bowl or eating food. Political participation is decreasing as more and more Americans believe that their voice doesn't matter in the government. I believe that is partly a result of the partisan nature of politics, in which the political discourse has become about the parties, rather than the issues. Most people feel disconnected from the political discourse when it becomes about the parties and not the people. I also believe that the concentration of power in the government has insulated it from public pressure, which is difficult to mount anyway, as I noted above.

Absolutely, grassroots movements come first (thank God). But, those movements do not rise with equal power everywhere. They are able to affect the national consensus and have more immediate results on the federal government than the individual state governments. State governments are vastly more insulated from public pressure (and are vastly more corrupt) than the federal government. The gay rights movement is an example of a movement that has been effective in today's political environment. Hate crimes legislation and the end to don't ask/don't tell are two recent examples.

Click to expand...

Some state governments are more corrupt than the federal government. Like you, I live in southern New England, so it's easy to believe that state governments, as a rule, are more corrupt than the federal government (Connecticut certainly is). However, there are state governments out there that are run with more efficiency and less corruption than you'll find in Washington. They tend to be the states that are not dominated by one party or another; i.e. they have the kind of accountability that stems from the threat of being voted out.

Gay rights movements have been effective, but I would contend that the bulk of their success came in the the years before this millennium started. The ball got rolling on that and other hate crimes years before this toxic political and social environment came about in America. A better example of something to watch in coming years is the struggle to decrease corporate influence on elections; I'm fairly certain most Americans want this to happen. We'll see...

EDIT - I noticed you and I both used the phrase "insulated from public pressure". Hmmm...